He means practicing a path for ones own gain and not helping other people. Plenty of Theravada Buddhists do Bodhisattva work helping other people. And plenty of Mahayana Buddhists are selfish and only after personal gain and vica versa. This is what we call the human condition. I'm a Mahayana Buddhist, sometimes I can be really selfish but other times I can be very generious. It's part of my practice to not be so selfish

villkorkarma wrote:dalai lama has said that own enligthenment for just oneself isnt real enligthenment. Why´s that`?

The Buddha taught no-self, he rediscovered a path one may follow to eradicate the ego. An enlightened or fully awakened being has completely purified mind, and eradicated the ego, this has benifit for all living beings. One who thinks "I" am enlightened is under the delusion of the ego, this is not real enlightenment.

There is no difference between Theravaden and Mahayana Buddhism, but the "I" will find some for sure.

I have a problem with the title. I think there are certainily enlightened Theravadins, perhaps more so than many other branches of Buddhism. And I doubt very much that the Dalai Lama meant what you think he did.

The source or link would be great to have. It is very difficult to comment given we only have one sentence of information. Context of the remark will help us understand better the full import of HH´s words.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

It is believed that Buddhaghosha, the famous Theravadin monk, who translated many Sri Lankan Buddhist scriptures into Pali and wrote Vishuddhimagga, eventually went to Tusita heaven to meet Maitreya and start coursing through the Bodhisattva Path to attain Buddhahood.

The disciples of Buddha were not "Theravada", "Hinayana" or "Mahayana", they were just termed Arhats. Buddha himself used to characterize himself as a perfect "Arhat". I think all these differences have more to do with etymology of terms, than to the notions associated with them. For example, the English word "nice" once used to refer to something bad!

I think the peculiarity of the term "Bodhisattva" lies in the fact that even lay disciples can be referred by this term unlike Arhats who can only be monks or nuns. Till you reach the 9th Bodhisattva Bhumi, you are still less spiritually attained than an Arhat. That says a lot.

Any student who practices well is worthy of respect no matter what tradition their in, IMO, and any student who genuinely wishes to attain to the practices, insights and truths of the practice is worthy of help IMO.Regardless of tradition or label, which was always just an after-the-fact requirement anyway, not reflective of the actual (living) status. IMO.

According to the previous Kalu Rinpoche the hinayana path doesnt get full complete enlighments because they don't fully attain the realization of shunyata. The shravaka path leads to the realization of emptiness of self but not of all phenomena, resulting in arhatship. The pratyekabuddha path leads to the realization of no self and a partial realization of emptiness of phenomena. They came to see all phenomena as made by small particules or atoms. Although they are high realized beeings the cant help much because of state of arahat is almost static and it lucks in communication.

This is what ive read in "fundaments of tibetan buddhism" by kalu rinpoche.

Rakshasa wrote:I think the peculiarity of the term "Bodhisattva" lies in the fact that even lay disciples can be referred by this term unlike Arhats who can only be monks or nuns.

Lay disciples can in fact become Arhats. However in the Theravadin tradition it is taught that a lay person attaining Arhathood has to become a monk or nun within a short time (like a day) or else they would die. I don't know what they base this on however. But technically lay disciples can in fact become Arhats.

kirtu wrote:Lay disciples can in fact become Arhats. However in the Theravadin tradition it is taught that a lay person attaining Arhathood has to become a monk or nun within a short time (like a day) or else they would die. I don't know what they base this on however. But technically lay disciples can in fact become Arhats.

Kirt

A reason to be grateful to the early Kagyu gurus, Padmasambhava, the 84 Mahasiddhas and so forth for their examples. Thus, Mahayanists and especially Vajrayanists believe the inner meaning is more important than the outer form.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

villkorkarma wrote:dalai lama has said that own enligthenment for just oneself isnt real enligthenment. Why´s that`?

Funny because Theravada was around before Mahayana.

A person once asked me why I would want to stop rebirth. "It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want to be reborn."I replied. "Wanting to be reborn is like wanting to stay in a jail cell, when you have the chance to go free and experience the whole wide world. Does a convict, on being freed from his shabby, constricting, little cell, suddenly say "I really want to go back to jail and be put in a cell. It sounds pretty cool. Being able to come back. Who wouldn't want that?"

kirtu wrote:Lay disciples can in fact become Arhats. However in the Theravadin tradition it is taught that a lay person attaining Arhathood has to become a monk or nun within a short time (like a day) or else they would die. I don't know what they base this on however. But technically lay disciples can in fact become Arhats.

Kirt

In Chinese I've read one eminent author who insists that arhatship isn't possible without formal renunciation.

I think what they mean is that they need to take up celibacy and eliminate all lust, though I don't see why formal renunciation would be necessary for that.

I don't ever recall the Dalai Lama saying theravada buddhist doesn't get real enlightenment. What he is saying IMO, is that selfish people don't get real enlightenment, which is quite reasonable to say.

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!